On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>>
>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>>
>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
>>> >> > last
>>> >> > paragraph.
>>>
>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>>>
>>> >> > Yours,
>>>
>>> >> > D.W.
>>>
>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>>
>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>>
>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
>>> he
>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>
>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?

By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.

>Substance is the essence of argument,

Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.

>only it's substance can have elegance.

Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:

"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero

>Or, an
>argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.

Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.

>So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?

You've still got it.